We've recieved this important message of appreciation and solidarity from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees. This is important news.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Us
- CAMBRIDGE GAZA SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN
- Beginning with a six day occupation of the Law Faculty in Cambridge to demand action from the university on six main demands, including support for education worldwide and disinvestment from the arms trade, Cambridge Gaza Solidarity is commited to bringing aid and support to Gaza, in solidarity with the people of Gaza, Israeli peace movements and all students taking action in this country. Stay posted for new developments in the campaign, ways to get involved and help out, meeting times and dates for fundraising, and details of events which we will be conducting in the immediate future. To learn more see our list of current goals in the link below.
So Israel is guilty of war crimes and atrocoties before they have even been brought to court? before there as even been an investigation?
ReplyDeleteThis whole letter stinks of Racism to me
Anti-Zionism IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT, anti-semitism
ReplyDeleteNo. Of course it is not, to say so is abhorrent! At no point have I ever expressed that it is so.
ReplyDeleteBut holding the Jewish state accountable to a completely different set of standards, judging and condemning their actions and policy completely out of comparative context for no logical reason, certainly begins to look a little questionable?
How did you post this to your blog? I cant work out how to do it like you have...email me if you can. SOAS.x
ReplyDeletesorry are you trying to argue that the deliberate targeting of civilians and civil structures such as schools waste plants universities and hospitals are not war crimes because:
ReplyDeletea.) israel hasn't been taken to court yet
and
b.) because Hamas killed some civilians too
Israel has been one of the most agressive states in the middle east and has on other occasions attacked power plants outside baghdad and UN buildings in Lebanon both of which breach international law.
ignorants - it is ironic you have chosen to post under such a name; more appropriate would 'ignorance'.
ReplyDelete"holding the Jewish state accountable to a completely different set of standards, judging and condemning their actions and policy completely out of comparative context for no logical reason, certainly begins to look a little questionable?" Frankly, this is nonsense.
Perhaps you might like to search on Youtube for a speech made in parliament a few days ago by the Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman in which he compares the actions of the Jewish state to those of the Nazis. It is quite legitimate to speak of Israel's war crimes. Indeed, to some, the very concept of a Jewish state is racially elitist. Eric Hobsbawm makes this pertinent point about his upbringing in central Europe during the middle of the 20th century, which has a significant bearing on attitudes towards Israel. His upbringing was in:
a milieu..., the Jewish middle-class culture of central Europe after WWI, [that] lived under the triple impact of the collapse of the bourgeois world, the October revolution and anti-semitism. ...What could Jewish intellectuals have become under such circumstances? Not liberals of any kind, since the world of liberalism (which included social democracy) was precisely what had collapsed. ... We became either communists or some equivalent form of revolutionary Marxists, or if we chose our own version of blood-and-soil nationalism, Zionists.
The culmination of that blood and soil nationalism was the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, founded on racist violence and the mass expulsion of thousands of indigenous inhabitants. Some early Zionists initially formed tactical alliances with the young Nazi party in an attempt to increase Jewish immigration to Greater Palestine.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020914.html This link is one of the saddest things I have yet witnessed: the spectacle of a pogrom conducted *by* Jews - settlers in the West Bank - who continue to inhabit the illegally occupied lands.
Throwing around allegations of racism, as you do, is a classic Zionist smear tactic which misses the real source of racism in the Middle East. Pending your response, I have you pegged as one.
Sam Wade.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be somewhat confused. It is most kind of you to put words in my mouth, though in future could such words make a little more sense. It is only polite as I don't like talking rubbish.
"are you trying to argue that the deliberate targeting of civilians and civil structures such as schools waste plants universities and hospitals are not war crimes because:
a.) israel hasn't been taken to court yet
and
b.) because Hamas killed some civilians too"
Contrary to what you may think, and it may come as a surprise to you, but I think deliberately targetting civilians is wrong! It is illegal, it is a war crime! My point is, that you have absolutley no objective evidence that Israel targetted civilians! You have evidence that civilians were killed during the conflict, but I am sure you are able to appreciate a key difference between those two points. If Israel really was targetting civilians they did a pretty shit job at it after three weeks. If Israel was targetting civilians they would have killed many many more. Israel targetted Hamas, and I think it is fair to say that there are major problems morally and physically in the way that they did this. I am willing to make that point clear, but I think you have to realise that it is abundantly clear that Israeli policy durng operation cast lead was not to kill civilians!
As for civil structures, targetting them is not necessarily a war crime. An investigation has to be carried out (and indeed the Israeli army is the only army in the world to carry out legal investigations of its units during combat operations) into why these buildings were targetted. If they were weapons caches, if they were being fired from then they become military targets. Again Israel does not act without consideration on such matters. The main hospital in Gaza didn't sustain any military damage. Not because Hamas weren't present, Israeli security believe that the leaders of the Hamas military wing have a bunker directly underneath the hospital, but because in taking out the bunker, it would have caused too much collateral damage and killed too many civilians. It has been proved that Hamas uses UN ambulances as transport, UN schools as firing grounds for rockets.
I am not making any judgements on whether what Israel has done is a war crime or not. My point is that without any real evidence (and evidence and investigations are underway and will bring forth some truth in the next few weeks) you cannot condemn anyone as guilty of war crimes. You have to realise that what is going on in Gaza is a war, they aren't generally that pleasant. Each civilian dead is horrific, but a dead civilian, under international law, does not constitute a war crime.
Does the legal axiom, innocent until proven Guilty not apply in this situation? What is the point in even brining Israel before a court of Law if you have made up your mind before hearing the evidence about whether she is Guilty or not! That is my point
I am not sure where you got the implication that Hamas's actions effect whether Israel should be found guilty. A war crime is a war crime regardless of who has comitted it. My point is that it seems you are willing to forego for Israel, the investigative processes that apply to other nations accused of far worse.
"Israel has been an aggressive state in the Middle East"
Again this is my point about context which you seem to be lacking. Israel from 1948, from the day it became a state along the UN partition plan guidelines, has either experienced hostile relations with, or been at war repelling neighbours who have sought to eradicate it from the map. Israel is the only country to have given back land captured in a defensive war in an attempt to create peace.
'Most' aggressive, that is highly subjective. Israel has fought constantly with neighbours who have sought to destroy it, please don't confuse aggression with defence. In fact i would actually challenge you to substantiate your point, by providing a clear and objective example (by that I mean one that is accepted by mainstread historicism) of a war that Israel initiated without provocation. It might save you some time if I told you not to bother looking.
I hope this clears up some of your confusion
Owen.....
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the time you have taken in responding, though I would have hoped that someone with at least a slight awareness of Eric Hobsbawm (though your understanding of his work is warped at least you know who the guy is)could put forward some more substantial, logical and objective arguments. If indeed you are a historian, I suggest you revist his work on nationalism for HAP.
Where do I begin.....well, first with the personal attacks.
"Throwing around allegations of racism, as you do, is a classic Zionist smear tactic which misses the real source of racism in the Middle East. Pending your response, I have you pegged as one."
So you have me 'pegged' as a Zionist? Your comments infer that to call anyone a 'zionist' is insulting. By implication you mean to suggest that every single Zionist supports the occupation of the West Bank, supported the occupation of the Gaza strip and was against unilateral withdrawal. I can assure you that Zionism is a very diverse position and covers a wide variety of political beliefs and ideals. Many more liberal zionists actually support a seperate palestinian state. If the idea of national self determination is racist then you are right. But then the call for a Palestinian state is also racist. As are the majority of nation states that exist today.
This brings me onto my critique of your narrow understanding of Hobsbawms arguments. Indeed context is something most important to historians. Hobsbawm is a marxist and a marxist historian. He isn't really keen on the idea of 'nation state' in general. His problem is not the jewish state, but rather nationalism. You have quoted the very line in which he implies this;
"We became either communists or some equivalent form of revolutionary Marxists, or if we chose our own version of blood-and-soil nationalism, Zionists." Hobsbawm believes communism is the answer and deplores those who go for nationalism. You are taking his words completley out of context. It is not that the Jewish form of natoinalism is specifically 'Racist' (I am not aware of Hobsbawm ever calling nationalism racist), but rather all nationalist movements are 'invented' and negative. Please, if you are going to start quoting some of the greatest historians of the last century, don't manipulate there words to suit your own political agenda.
"the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, founded on racist violence and the mass expulsion of thousands of indigenous inhabitants."
Yes, Israel was founded in 1948, good fact. Racist violence was also present, have a look at racist massacres of Jews by Arabs, at places like Tsfat, Hebron, Haifa, Jerusalem, as well as some disgusting repraisals from extreme zionist groups who were completley oustside the mainstream of political thought and representation. Indeed the group that carried out the only massacre that I think you would be able to come up with, Deir Yessin, was disbanded by the Israeli government as soon as the state was formed, ships carrying arms for that movement were sunk by Israel, and Israel openly condemned those actions. I don't see many Palestinian movements condeming racist attacks against Jews during the 1930s. Neither side was innocent in those early years, however, contextualise the facts and reaslie that Palestinian movements became increasingly racist during the 1930s. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was convicted at Nuremberg. If you would like to go and do some objective research about him and what he got up to as spiritual and political representative of the Palestinian people at that time please do. Indeed, when Israel was invaded in 1948, the Arab armies invaded with racist intentions to kill all Jews. Not something the Israeli forces practiced as a matter of ideological policy (though I am not categorically denying that it didn't happen). Whether the Palestinians fled on orders, or were forced to flee by Israel is Historically open to question, probably a bit of both.
Those that stayed, and make up 20% of the populatoin of Israel today, do not live in a state based on 'racist' principles. They experience a quantifiably better quality
of life than any other nation in the Middle-East. They experience basic civil liberties that don’t exist elsewhere in the region, including equality of gender, religion and race before the law; unrivalled freedom of speech, education and protest. They benefit from the most positive socio-economic indicators in the Middle East; the longest life expectancy in the region; the lowest infant mortality rates; highest levels of education and literacy etc. Your criticism of Israel as a racist state, is so wide of the mark, and has no foundation in fact. Please feel free to dispute any of the above. You are aware that the West Bank and Gaza don't constitue the state of Israel, that is the only thing I can think of that may be confusing you????
"Some early Zionists initially formed tactical alliances with the young Nazi party in an attempt to increase Jewish immigration to Greater Palestine" - Yes, some zionist movemetns sought to get Jews out of Germany. How wrong of them to try and save people from Nazi persecution. Is there a point you are trying to make? To be honest it doesn't even deserve proper discussion so please clarify what you are talking about.
"Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman in which he compares the actions of the Jewish state to those of the Nazis"
So his ethinc background makes him a spokesman for one of the most complex events in History? He is right or he is wrong, the fact that he is a Jews doesn't add anything to his argument? I can assure you, as someone who has studied Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, he is wrong. I can also assure you 99% of those professors who have studied the same events, will also hold that he is wrong. Mr Kauffman experienced neither the Holocaust first hand, nor events in Gaza first hand. Yes he is Jewish, and yes his family (like most jewish families) were caught up in the holocaust, but that doesn't qualify him to talk on the matter with any intellectual or historical authority. If David Irving was Jewish, woud you say that his views should be taken more seriously? Of course not (least I hope you wouldn't).
As for the article you linked, I have read that before: "one of the saddest things I have yet witnessed: the spectacle of a pogrom conducted *by* Jews - settlers in the West Bank - who continue to inhabit the illegally occupied lands." What makes you think that Zionists generally support that? The people that carried out that disgusting crime (it was truly abhorrent, deplorable, atavistic and vile)are the equivalent of the KKK in America. They do not represent the mainstream Israeli public. Their actions were condemned in the strongest of possilbe language by the Israeli President. The fact that he, a jew, used the word pogrom as an equivalence shows his absolute disgust at what happened. As I said, you are obviously ignorant of what a majority of zionists really want. Peace for Israel! Believe me when I say you are not the only one that wants to see israel get out of the West Bank. I think you will also find that since that report, arrests were made. But was it really one of the 'saddest things' you have 'ever witnessed'? If so you have lead a ver sheltered life. I would have said that the recent events in Gaza and Sderot, in which innocent children actually died, is a lot more distressing. Look on the news tonight, or in a 20th Century history book, or on the internet and I think you will see a lot worse.
"It is quite legitimate to speak of Israel's war crimes".
Yes, if and when Israel is found guilty of those crimes. If and when evidence proving accusations (for that is all they are at the moment) to be true, comes to light. Even those that are calling most vehemently for investigations and tribunals don't use the langauage you use. They call for tribunals to establish whether Israel is guilty, for you this is an establised fact even before trial. See my above response to Sam for more on this matter.
"Throwing around allegations of racism, as you do, is a classic Zionist smear tactic which misses the real source of racism in the Middle East." Does this even deserve a discussion? probably not. Read some more History books, have a look at whether there was Anti-Semitism and Racism prior to the existence of the state of Israel. When you find that there war, you will find that your argument fails.
I look forward to reading your response